BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN

Since the 1970s men have been brutalised by "Affirmative Action" and other man bashing sexism orchestrated by state and federal governments.

Submitted:Dec 29, 2010
Reads: 463
Comments: 0
Likes: 0

On
the issue of feminism and equality of the sexes, I would like to
thank Antoinette Rydyr (in her article "Feminism Versus Freedom",
Prohibited Matter #5) for her excellent, accurate and articulate
comments about bull-feminists and their strange tendency of
thinking no-one matters unless they agree with the feminist
philosophy: that all men are rapists and therefore to achieve an
equal society we must ensure that only women have
rights.

At
the risk of raising the ire of hardcore feminists the world over,
let me say point blank that the single biggest weakness in the
whole feminist (bowel) movement is the strange belief that women
can somehow achieve equality without men. No way! I am sorry
to have to tell this to you ladies, but it is impossible for
women to achieve any kind of equality at all, unless it is
equality between women AND MEN! These are the only two sexes,
women and men (if we rule out gays, lesbians, bisexuals,
trisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, string-vestites,
leather-freaks, eunuchs, hermaphrodites, etc.), so unless women
achieve equality with men, how the hell are they supposed to
achieve equality at all? Man-bashing female-domination (which
hardcore feminists like Carmen Lawrence and Ita Buttrose, and
male feminists like John Cain and Paul Keating seem to want) is
not equality!

Before I go any further, let me set the record straight
on the hardcore feminist term "inverted sexism". Not so long
ago Ita Buttrose polluted the airwaves with a burst of verbal
diarrhoea in which she said that due to there being more men than
women at the executive level in this country, inverted sexism was
necessary to even things up. I disagree with this for two
reasons. Firstly as the cliché goes "two wrongs don't make a
right". Or to put it another way "Sexism + sexism =
Double-sexism", not equality as Ms Buttrose seems to think. If
sexism is wrong (and obviously it is) then double-sexism is
doubly wrong. Secondly the term "inverted sexism" is nonsense
anyway. There is no such thing as inverted sexism, because,
despite what Ms Buttrose would have us believe, sexism does not
mean "discrimination against women by men". Sexism means,
"discrimination against women or men on the basis of their
gender". So if we follow Ita Buttrose or Paul Keating's policy
of giving jobs to women because they are women, not because they
are the best person for the job, we are not guilty of "inverted
sexism", we are guilty of "flagrant sexism". The only kind
there is. The whole point to equality is that when a job is
available the best candidate should get it regardless of their
gender. When we decide to pick a woman for a job despite
knowing she is not the best candidate available, we are not
"evening things up" as Paul or Ita would like us to believe, we
are acting in an openly sexist manner.

Over the last few decades of lunacy under John Cain, Joan
Kirner, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, all
kinds of incredibly sexist legislation have been introduced in
this country under the guise of equality. (And let me say here
and now before anyone accuses me of political bias against the
Labor Party, that I was born and raised in Melbourne's Western
Suburbs, the heartland of ALP country in this state, and I have
voted ALP at every election I have voted at so far, except once,
when unable to bring myself to vote for that idiot John Cain any
longer, I put a blank ballot in the box. I will never vote
LIB/NAT unless they can force themselves to make the decision to
stop recruiting most of their candidates from the ranks of the Ku
Klux Klan!) To name a few:

JOBS ADVERTISED IN THEVICTORIANSTATEGOVERNMENT GAZETTE. Traditionally all
state government jobs are advertised for two weeks only, and it
is up to you to find any suitable transfer or promotion and apply
within that time. However, in the mid 1980s, as a way of
achieving equality in the workplace, John Cain introduced an
interesting modification to this rule. Namely that at the end
of the two week period, if no woman had applied for the job, it
must be re-advertised, for as long as necessary, until a
"suitable number of women" have applied for it. And during the
re-advertising period (which might end up many months if no women
were interested in the job), only women could apply for the job.
There are a number of problems with this legislation. To name
two: firstly it doesn't work both ways. If at the end of the
initial two-week period only women have applied for the job, no
men, the job is not re-advertised until a "suitable number of
men" have applied for it. They simply interview the woman
applicants and pick the most suitable one. Another problem with
this incredibly sexist piece of legislation is that if a section
is grossly short staffed (a case with many Victorian Government
departments despite what the news media wants you to believe!)
and desperately needs to fill the vacancy, it is no help to them
to have to hold the job open for possibly month after month so a
nutcase feminist premier can suck up to the hardcore feminist
minority!

If John Cain had wanted genuine equality
between women and men in the workplace (as I do) his legislation
would have said, "If at the end of the initial two week period
there are not applications from both men and women for a vacancy,
the vacancy must be re-advertised until at least one member of
each sex has applied for the job. During the re-advertisement
period, members of either sex can apply for the
job!"

FILLING JOB VACANCIES UNDER THE CAIN
GOVERNMENT.

In
the Victorian public service, rather than simply selecting an
applicant to fill a job, they use a method of attrition. If
five hundred people apply, they try to weed out two hundred while
reading the written applications. Of the remaining three
hundred, they try to drop at least two hundred more after the
first interview, then another fifty after the second interview,
another forty after the third, and so on to quickly get down to
just one remainder who gets the job. In the late 1980s a piece
of sexist legislation was introduced into Victoria saying: "Once
the number of applicants for any position has been reduced to the
best two, if they have equal qualifications for the job, equal
experience at the job, equal education, and are equal in all
other factors, so it is impossible to split them other than on
gender; if one of them is male, the other female, then the woman
must be given the job." I kid you not!

This is a classic example of John Cain's "two wrongs do
make a right" philosophy. His weird notion that the way to
cancel out sexism against women is to sexually discriminate
against men. Frankly if there is no other way to split the best
two candidates it would be a hell of a lot fairer to toss a coin
or pull a name out of a hat than to select on the basis of
gender, in direction opposite to Cain's own claim to want jobs
filled on the basis of ability, not sex!

Hardcore feminists often accuse men of paranoia when they
talk about being discriminated against but frankly it's hard not
to become paranoid under this kind of
harassment!

I
remember in May 1990 when I applied for a job at the
(then)Kings
Streetbranch
of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). I was nothing short of
disgusted when the first question the feminist employment officer
asked me was, "Would you have any problems working in the same
office with women?" I was so angry that, despite being a
pacifist, frankly I almost belted the smug bitch in the face!
If women expect to be treated with respect in the workplace by
men, the very least they can do is show a little respect to men
in the workplace also!

Because of this treatment I should not have been
surprised when I started there to find a noticeable difference
between the way women and men work at the ATO in the 1990s.
Namely that while the women freely chatter about private matters
while working, the men never say anything inside the building
that is not directly work related. Don't get me wrong; I'm not
saying anything sexist about women in general talking more than
men. Rather it is a matter that the men at the Australian Tax
Office are all afraid of being misunderstood or misquoted to the
Gestapo (Equal EmploymentOpportunity)
officers. It is no exaggeration to say the men are afraid that
Big Sister is watching over them. If that makes me paranoid,
then there were about 400 other paranoid men at theKings
StreetBranch
of the ATO in those days.

A
classic example of "equality" in the public service came to light
a few months after I started there. To help new workers
acclimatise themselves to the ATO, the Tax Office had us spend an
hour a week for the first six months at induction sessions where
we were both given the chance to learn procedures and also an
opportunity to bitch about anything we wanted to. A friend of
mine, named Paul, brought up a situation of inconsistency in the
way workers were being treated: his desk was in the very corner
of a room, so no-one had any reason to ever go behind it or see
what was on it. Yet he was reported for "sexism" because he had
a photo of his fiancé in a very modest bikini on his desk. The
woman who reported him had had no reason to go behind his desk,
but had done so solely because she suspected he had a picture of
his girlfriend on his desk. At the same time when he went down
to the Personnel Section, where most of the employees were women,
he was shocked to see full-frontal cut-outs of nude men pinned up
all around the walls and notice boards where anyone entering had
to see them. Quite understandably he wanted to know why a man
could get in trouble for having a photo of his own fiancé in a
bikini, on his own desk, where no-one could see it unless they
made an effort to do so, while women could get away with showing
full-frontal nude men in public where hundreds of people a day
would see them?

To
me the worst aspect of this whole sordid hypocrisy was that the
induction officer, herself a hardcore feminist, laughed it off,
refusing to take it seriously. Make no mistake; if the
full-frontal nudes had been women, the men responsible would have
been dismissed!

One of many, many problems with Paul
Keating's version of equality is the strange way it not only
defies logic, but also defies the constitution on occasions.
Two instances in point: When the sexual harassment laws were
first introduced under the Hawke Government there was a sensible
clause saying that for a woman to convict a man she had to be
able to show reasonable grounds for believing that the majority
of women would have been offended by what the man said or did.
Clearly this is not unfair to women, since if the man tried to
force her to have sex with him, grabbed her breasts, etc., this
would offend any woman and she could convict him. But if he did
something no more than tell a sexist joke that many women would
laugh off then he would not get into major trouble. Early in
the Keating regime this sensible legislation was scrapped so that
if a woman grossly overreacts to something the man has done and
is the one woman in a million who would be offended by it, the
man is out of luck and can be sacked or prosecuted. A case in
point: soon after this legislation came into effect the male
secretary of a female government minister put on his boss's
answering machine a joke that said, "Some men like women with
short legs, some men like women with long legs, and some men like
somewhere in-between." This was a childish act, and the man
should certain have been reprimanded in some way. But it did
not warrant him being sacked and having his superannuation
confiscated (some thousands of dollars). Which is exactly what
happened!

The second example of "equality" defying
the constitution relates to the way a man is now assumed guilty
till proved innocent. So that if there is no evidence, just his
testimony versus his accuser's testimony, he is automatically
convicted. The Australian constitution still states clearly
that a person is "innocent till proven guilty," not the other way
around! So when a case comes down to the accuser saying this,
the accused saying that, no witnesses, no evidence, by the
constitution and all principles of the democratic system the
accused must be found not guilty. This clearly does not happen
in cases before the Equal Opportunity Gestapo. It is virtually
impossible for a man to clear himself at a sexism hearing once
accused, unless he has a woman who will testify for him. A case
in point (as reported in theMelbourneHerald-Sun in the early
2000s): two biology teachers, one male one female, were
discussing anatomy in the staff room during a free period.
Unbeknown to them a young student teacher was listening in (and
moved closer so she could overhear every word). Later she
reported the man for talking dirty in front of her and at his
inquisition the feminist commissioner called him a pervert to his
face. He only got off, with no apology for the insult, because
the woman teacher he had been talking to came forward and told
the truth about what had really happened. Without her testimony
due to the "old girls network" we call the Equal Opportunity
Commission, the man would have been unjustly convicted with no
chance to defend himself. Hardly an example of the democratic
process at its most inspiring!

I'm not sure what schools this young teacher expected to
make a career at, but in the Western Suburbs where I was raised,
if a teacher cannot handle "dirty talk" from a biology text book,
I doubt she is going to survive very long. In form one at the
Williamstown North Technical School, when I attended it in the
early 1970s, we were dead proud of the fact that we managed to
send no less than two English teachers to the loony bin in the
first half of the year! This poor frail wallflower can thank
her lucky stars she does not teach inNorth
Williamstown.

Another sick aspect of this assumption that the man is
always guilty is the way, in cases of non-physical "harassment";
a man now receives no warnings, no chance to try to mend his
ways. Despite what the hardcore feminists want you to believe,
most men are not consciously sexists. Ninety-nine times out of
a hundred when a man says something "sexist" in the workplace, it
is due to ignorance, not malicious intent. Therefore the man
should get some kind of warning that his behaviour is
unacceptable, some chance to mend his ways. A case in point: a
few years ago a number of Australian journalists went overseas to
cover a major political convention. One of the reporters missed
the plane and had to take a later flight. When she got to the
convention centre she found every hotel room in the city had been
booked out. So she went to the chief reporter from her paper
and asked for his advice. The man took her to a lounge where
the other journalists were gathered and said "Suzie has nowhere
to sleep. Who wants to sleep with Suzie?" Everyone burst into
laughter, including Suzie herself. A week later
they returned toAustraliaand Suzie still gave no indication that she had been
offended by her boss's joke. However, three months later she
finally reported him to the Equal Opportunity Commission. When
asked why she had not reported him as soon as she returned to
Australia, she replied it took her three months to decide she had
been offended enough to put in a report! I kid you not! When
asked why she had laughed at the joke at the time, if it offended
her, she answered, "I didn't want to look like a bad sport". My
answer to her would be, "You've not only ended up looking like a
bad sport, but also a hypocrite and a liar!"

This is a classical case of a man having no way
of knowing his conduct is unacceptable. Obviously the joke he
told at her expense was sexist; obviously the woman was owed an
apology. However, in turn, the man was owed the common courtesy
of being told on the spot that his conduct was unacceptable and
given a fair chance to mend his ways.

My
belief is that in the case of non-physical "harassment" of this
sort, the woman should have to give the man at least two warnings
before reporting him to her supervisor, then the supervisor
should give him at least two warnings before putting in an
official report. That way the man would have four separate
opportunities to mend his ways. And both the woman and the
supervisor should have to sign a legal document pledging that the
man has been given warnings on a minimum of four separate
occasions. Also after the "Suzie" case (actually that was not
her real name), I believe that in the first two incidents there
should be a time limit of no more than forty-eight hours between
when an incident happens and when a man is told his conduct is
unacceptable. Likewise there should be a forty-eight hour
maximum between when the third incident occurs and when it is
reported to the supervisor, and at most a seventy-two hour gap
between when the fifth incident occurs and when the supervisor
puts in his/her report to the Equal Opportunity Commission.
Three months to decide you were offended is just a load of
BS!

Another classic example of the feminist version of
equality is the way they legislated to get the federal government
to change their terminology and funding so that instead of
talking about "domestic violence", we now talk about "violence
against women". This might seem merely a trifling matter of
jargon, and if that's all it was I would be unconcerned.
However, the reason the feminists insisted on the new terminology
is because twenty Percent of cases of domestic violence in this
country involve women beating up their husbands. Previously
these men could apply to the government for both free counselling
and financial aid. However, the new terminology means that all
government assistance now goes solely to the eighty Percent of
domestic violence victims who are woman. The men are left to
fend for themselves. Hardly true equality!

Ultimately the biggest problem with Paul Keating's Loony
Tunes version of equality is that he has maintained the old
order's sexist-racist idea of "priority groups" (a term commonly
used by the Equal Opportunity Gestapo to defend their
indefensible actions). Under the old male-dominated order the
three priority groups were Male, White, Heterosexual; under
Keating's new-age sexism the priority groups are Female, Black,
Homosexual. So whereas once to be an important person in
Australia you had to be a white, male heterosexual, under Paul
Keating's crazy system you now have to be a black, gay female.
This is hardly equality between men and women, whites and blacks,
or straights and gays!

Paul Keating's (and his predecessor Bob Hawke's) whole
system seems to be based on the crazy belief that you can "fight
fire with fire". (If you think he's right, I suggest the next
time your house is on fire, try throwing burning kerosene on it.
You'll soon discover you need to fight fire with water!) In
other words rather than just scrapping legislation that
discriminates against women, the Hawke-Keating philosophy says we
must cancel it out by bringing in extra legislation that
discriminates against men. A case in point: I remember when the
law was first changed, under the Hawke regime, stating that clubs
and organisations with more than five hundred members must be
open to members of both sexes. Although I agree with this idea,
I wondered at the time why such a large number, five hundred, was
chosen? Why not make it fifty members? Or fifteen? Or five?
I found out the answer while working for the Australian
government in the early 1990s. Before the government brought in
the legislation it had first spent eighteen months surveying
clubs inAustralia. It
found out that at that time ninety Percent of men's clubs in this
country had more than five hundred members, and ninety Percent of
women's clubs had less than five hundred members. So that
ninety Percent of men's clubs would be forced to accept female
members, while ninety Percent of women's clubs would be allowed
to continue to exclude male members! Obviously when the
government brought in this piece of legislation, they never had
any intention of bringing about equality of the sexes. They
were deliberately discriminating against men! A classic example
of this would be the sexist way the Fernwood Female Fitness
Centre (so named after a change of ownership) in late 1995
managed to exclude its four hundred male members despite the fact
that they had paid the next twelve months' membership fees and
were not given any refund!

I
suppose as a consequence of this article, many feminists will
malign me as a male chauvinist. This is of no concern to me,
due to the feminist tendency over the last few decades to use
this cliché to cry down men whenever men raise any argument the
feminists have no answer for. They use the term "male
chauvinist" as a "magically dirty word" (the same way the wealthy
in the USA use the word "communist" as a magically dirty word to
destroy the credibility of social reformers like Jesse Jackson to
stop them from improving the lot of America's thirty million
starving ghetto class). The term "male chauvinist" has been
abused so much by the bull-feminists that at best it can now be
regarded as "a feminist expression that has no meaning in the
real world".

The feminist tenet seems to be that a
feminist should be able to say what she likes without having to
ever substantiate her claims. But her opponents (especially
men) have no right to voice an opinion, even if they possess
solid proofs to back up their arguments. A case in point: in
late 1995 Ita Buttrose was quoted as saying the simple solution
toAustralia's alarmingly high divorce rate is for men to
stop deserting their wives. Ironically enough, a few days later
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) published a paper
reporting that eighty-five Percent of all Australian divorces and
separations now occur when the woman leaves the man. This
doesn't mean the woman is in the wrong seventeen out of twenty
times. Many of these women might be married to real bastards.
Nonetheless it makes a mockery of Ms Buttrose's claim. If the
ABS were right, a better solution toAustralia's rising divorce rate would be for women to
stop deserting their husbands!

Well, I could go on for volumes, however,
I hope I have made my point. Not only is institutionalised
sexual harassment of men by women rampant in this country,
particularly within the federal government, but also it is fair
to say that the worst sexists in the world are the ones who call
themselves feminists!